Sunday, February 18, 2007
Voting machines get examined, despite the manufacturer's efforts
Techdirt has a funny story, which they wrote up so well I can't think of a way to add value to it:
Want To Examine E-Voting Machines That E-Voting Companies Won't Let You See? Do You Have $82?
The term "security by obscurity" used in the article is shorthand for acting like an ostrich, pretending that security problems are OK if you keep them secret, or that nobody will break into a system if they don't know how it works. Security pros believe that security comes from having lots of clever people able to examine (and therefore critique and propose fixes for) a system.
UPDATE 2/18:
The first results are in from the Princeton study of Sequoia voting machines. The company says the results are "not based on ...reality" because the attacks couldn't happen at a polling place while the machines were being watched. OK, but plenty of jurisdictions have let poll workers store the machines at home, and the anti-tampering seals on some machines have been way too easy to remove and replace.
|
Want To Examine E-Voting Machines That E-Voting Companies Won't Let You See? Do You Have $82?
The term "security by obscurity" used in the article is shorthand for acting like an ostrich, pretending that security problems are OK if you keep them secret, or that nobody will break into a system if they don't know how it works. Security pros believe that security comes from having lots of clever people able to examine (and therefore critique and propose fixes for) a system.
UPDATE 2/18:
The first results are in from the Princeton study of Sequoia voting machines. The company says the results are "not based on ...reality" because the attacks couldn't happen at a polling place while the machines were being watched. OK, but plenty of jurisdictions have let poll workers store the machines at home, and the anti-tampering seals on some machines have been way too easy to remove and replace.